5/11/2009

To determine whether there was a disparity in where the money would go, the AP divided the nation's counties into four groups by unemployment levels. The analysis found that, no matter how the early money is measured, communities suffering most fare the worst.

The early trend seen in the AP analysis runs counter to expectations raised by Obama, that road and infrastructure money from the historic $787 billion stimulus plan would create jobs in areas most devastated by layoffs and plant closings. Transportation money, he said, would mean paychecks for "folks looking for work" and "folks who want to work."

The rest of the AP's analysis echoes these excerpts.

This is a Democratic White House's plan with benefits for a state the President carried. Moreover, it has a Democratic Governor. Even with all those aligned stars, the White House still can't get outcomes in congruence with intentions (at least not yet). Obama's goal was to put people who need jobs to work building public projects the country needs. Unfortunately the people who need jobs aren't always proximate to the necessary projects ("need" and "necessary" are, necessarily, matters of opinion).

Is Obama corrupt and inept? If so, this is crappy evidence. Is this an argument for no stimulus plan? Also no. It's just extremely hard for centralized planning to achieve intended ends, and it gets harder and harder as goals get more complex (factorial computations come to mind). In less mathematical terms, reality always gets in the way.